K.V. Subramanyam, V. ITO,

ITA 671/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0235 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUN IL KUMAR AGARWALJ
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARADWAJ SESHADRI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE S MT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 671/B ANG/20 13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) SHRI K.V.SUBRAMANIAM, NO.15, SAI SMARAN APART MENTS, 17 TH CROSS, 35 A MAIN, JP NAGAR VI PHASE, BANGALORE - 560078. PA NO. AQGPS 0686 J VS APPELLANT INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(2) BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI BHARADWAJ SESHADRI, CA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNILKUMAR AGARWAL, JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 20/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /06/2016 O R D E R PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - IV, BANGALORE, DATED 19/03/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE OPPOSED TO FACTS AND BAD IN LAW. ITA NO . 671/ BANG/201 3 PAGE 2 OF 5 2. THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND CIT (A) ARE CONTR ARY TO LAW AND THEY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 3. THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND CIT (A) ARE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS ENTITLED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT CONFIRMED THE INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND HAS GOT LIMITED INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED TOP UP LOAN FROM THE CITY BANK AND GIVEN THE SAME T O HIS FATHER, LATER HIS FATHER HAS DEPOSITED TO HIS ACCOUNT OF RS. 9,00,000/ - CASH ON 10.02.2009, WHICH IS CLEARLY SHOWS IN HIS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. ON 14.02.2009 , THE APPELLANT HAS OBTAINED LOAN FROM HIS RELATIVES, SAME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 9,00,000/ - BY CASH. ANOTHER A SUM OF RS. 9,00,000/ - HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WRONGLY, SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SRI. S..VAIRAVAN, THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT. THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DATED 16.0 2.2009 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH THE STATEMENT OF HIS FATHER. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN ADDED BACK THE CASH DEPOSITS IS ERRONEOUS. SUCH BEING THE CASE, TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R AS WELL AS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAVE ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 1,50,000/ - TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF HOUSE PROPERTY LOSS, WHEN EVIDENCE IS OF CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST AND STATEMENT OF HOUSING LOAN FROM M/S. CITIBANK NA WAS PRODUCED ON 30.11.2011. SUCH BEING THE CASE, TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAVE ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS.55,000/ - TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL UNDER SECTION 80C(5)(III) A & B HOUSE PROPERTY LOSS WHEN EVIDENCE IS STATEMENT OF HOUSING LOAN FROM M/S. CITYBANK NA PRODUCED ON 30.11.2011. SUCH BEING THE CASE, TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED ITA NO . 671/ BANG/201 3 PAGE 3 OF 5 INVESTMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 3. BRIEFLY, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL. RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WAS FILED ON 28/7/2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,09,160/ - . AFTER PROCESSING THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.143(1) THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30/12/2011 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.34,32,590/ - . WHILE DOING SO, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.27,18,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS AND DISALLOWED LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.1,50,000/ - . 4. BEING AGGRIEV ED, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO, VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.27,18,000/ - . LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.27,18,000/ - WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THAT IT REPRESENTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE.. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING D EPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT PLOT NO.4, SURVEY NO.41/3, DEVI KARUMARIAMMAN NAGAR, KOLAPAKKAM VILLAGE, SRIPERUMBUDUR TALUK, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU: ITA NO . 671/ BANG/201 3 PAGE 4 OF 5 THE SAID CONTENTION WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE SAID SALE DEED WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF CHEQUE FOR RS.24,00,000/ - AND THERE WAS NO MENTION ABOUT RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION IN CASH IN THE SALE DEED. EXCEPT MAKING BALD STATEMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) NO EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED EITHER BEFORE TH E CIT(A) OR BEFORE US. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THE SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IS A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CONSIDERATION PASSED AND ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BALD STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSITS ARE MADE OUT OF SALE OF PROPERTY MENTIONED ABOVE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE PRIMARY ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD MISERABLY FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS WITH PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.27,18,000/ - . RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN PARIMISETHI SEETHARAMAMMA VS.CIT ( 57 ITR 532 ) AND 234 ITR 801 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS THOSE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF RECEIPT OF AMOUNT BY AN ASSESSEE WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT RELATES TO UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS AND THE PRIMARY ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WITH PLAUSIBLE ITA NO . 671/ BANG/201 3 PAGE 5 OF 5 EV IDENCE THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. FAILURE TO DO SO ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.69 WHICH WAS RIGHT INVOKED BY THE AO IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE SECOND GROUND RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.1,50,000/ - . THE AO DISALLOWED IT IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO DATE OF POSSESSION OF THE PR OPERTY, DATE OF OCCUPATION OF SUCH HOUSE FOR SELF OCCUPATION ETC. NO SUCH DETAILS WERE FILED EVIDENCING THAT THE HOUSE WAS SELF - OCCUPIED AND READY TO OCCUPY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/ - SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE D A T E D : 30/06/2016 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) - II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE